+ - 0:00:00
Notes for current slide
Notes for next slide

an iterative, collaborative process has evolved to formulate ecosystem advice and to apply it in decision making

Ecosystem Based Management:
engagement and governance, US perspective

Balancing resource management and conservation: EBM in practice
22 November 2022

Sarah Gaichas
NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center

With thanks to Brandon Muffley, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

1 / 31

Scientific concepts → management and stakeholder engagement

The IEA Loop1 IEA process from goal setting to assessment to strategy evaluation with feedbacks

[1] https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/national/IEA-approach

2 / 31

an iterative, collaborative process has evolved to formulate ecosystem advice and to apply it in decision making

International scientific collaboration: ICES WGNARS

ICES WGNARS webpage

Deep dive into components of the IEA process from a scientific perspective

  • Outlining potential management objectives to start conversations with managers
  • Example ecosystem indicators, conceptual models, and risk assessments
  • Productive exchange between different national frameworks for EBFM/Ocean management and scientific databases

WGNARS paper title and authors

3 / 31

Collaborative interdisciplinary process and worked examples (DePiper, et al., 2017)

4 / 31

Engagement improving State of the Ecosystem (SOE) Reporting: Context for busy people

"So what?" --John Boreman, September 2016

  1. Clear linkage of ecosystem indicators with management objectives

  2. Synthesis across indicators for big picture

  3. Indicators related to management objectives being placed first in report

  4. Short (< 40 pages), non-technical (but rigorous) text

  5. Emphasis on reproducibility

5 / 31

In 2016, we began taking steps to address these common critiques of the ESR model Many indicators presented at WGNARS, used in larger Ecosystem Status reports Shorter, fishery specific State of the Ecosystem (SOE) report with conceptual models prototyped based on California Current reporting Feedback from fishery managers redesigned reporting to align with objectives outlined by WGNARS

Report structure revised in 2021 to address Council requests and improve synthesis

  • Performance relative to management objectives
    • What does the indicator say--up, down, stable?
    • Why do we think it is changing: integrates synthesis themes
      • Multiple drivers
      • Regime shifts
      • Ecosystem reorganization
  • Objectives
    • Seafood production
    • Profits
    • Recreational opportunities
    • Stability
    • Social and cultural
    • Protected species
  • Risks to meeting fishery management objectives
    • What does the indicator say--up, down, stable?
    • Why this is important to managers: integrates synthesis themes
      • Multiple drivers
      • Regime shifts
      • Ecosystem reorganization
  • Risk categories
    • Climate: warming, ocean currents, acidification
      • Habitat changes (incl. vulnerability analysis)
      • Productivity changes (system and fish)
      • Species interaction changes
      • Community structure changes
    • Other ocean uses
      • Offshore wind development
6 / 31

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2022:

Performance relative to management objectives

Seafood production decreasing arrow icon, status not evaluated

Profits decreasing arrow icon, status not evaluated

Recreational opportunities: Effort increasing arrow icon above average icon icon; Effort diversity decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon

Stability: Fishery no trend icon near average icon icon; Ecological mixed trend icon near average icon icon

Social and cultural, trend not evaluated, status of:

  • Fishing engagement and reliance by community
  • Environmental Justice (EJ) Vulnerability by community

Protected species:

  • Maintain bycatch below thresholds mixed trend icon meeting objectives icon
  • Recover endangered populations (NARW) decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon
7 / 31

State of the Ecosystem Summary 2022:

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Climate: warming and changing oceanography continue

  • Heat waves and Gulf Stream instability
  • Estuarine, coastal, and offshore habitats affected, with range of species responses
  • Below average summer 2021 phytoplankton
  • Multiple fish with poor condition, declining productivity

Other ocean uses: offshore wind development

  • Current revenue in proposed areas
    • 1-31% by port (some with EJ concerns)
    • 0-20% by managed species
  • Different development impacts for species preferring soft bottom vs. hard bottom
  • Overlap with one of the only known right whale foraging habitats, increased vessel strike and noise risks
  • Rapid buildout in patchwork of areas
  • Scientific survey mitigation required
8 / 31

Continuing dialogue with managers shapes report and indicators presented each year: 2022 State of the Ecosystem Request tracking memo

Request Year Source Status Progress Memo Section
Add "This report is for [audience]" 2021 MAFMC SSC In SOE Introduction section 1
State management objectives first in report 2021 NEFMC In SOE Introduction section + Table 2
Ocean acidification (OA) in NEFMC SOE 2021 NEFMC SSC In SOE Climate risks section 3
Habitat impact of fishing based on gear. 2021 NEFMC In SOE Habitat risks section 4
Revisit right whale language 2021 NEFMC In SOE Protected species section 5
Sum of TAC/ Landings relative to TAC 2021 MAFMC SSC In SOE-MAFMC Seafood production section 6
Estuarine Water Quality 2020 NEFMC In SOE-MAFMC, In progress-NEFMC Climate and Habitat Risks sections MAFMC; Intern collated New England NERRS data 7
More direct opportunities for feedback 2021 MAFMC SSC In progress MAFMC SSC ecosystem subgroup 8
Further definition of regime shift 2021 MAFMC SSC In progress Regime shift analyses for specific indicators define "abrupt" and "persistent" quantitatively 9
Expand collaboration with Canadian counterparts 2021 MAFMC SSC In progress Currently drafting a NMFS-DFO climate/fisheries collaboration framework. 10
Fall turnover date index 2021 MAFMC SSC In progress See Current Conditions report 11
Links between species availability inshore/offshore (estuarine conditions) and trends in recreational fishing effort? 2021 MAFMC In progress Bluefish prey index inshore/offshore partially addresses 12
Apex predator index (pinnipeds) 2021 NEFMC In progress Protected species branch developing time series 13
Forage availability index (Herring/Sandlance) 2021 NEFMC In progress Bluefish prey index partially addresses 14
Fishery gear modifications accounted for in shark CPUE? 2021 MAFMC In progress Updated methods in tech-doc 15
Trend analysis 2021 NEFMC SSC In progress Evaluating empirical thresholds 16
Regime shifts in Social-Economic indicators 2021 NEFMC SSC In progress National working group and regional study 17
Linking Condition 2020 MAFMC In progress Not ready for 2022 18
Cumulative weather index 2020 MAFMC In progress Data gathered for prototype 19
VAST and uncertainty 2020 Both Councils In progress Not ready for 2022 20
Seal index 2020 MAFMC In progress Not ready for 2022 21
Breakpoints 2020 NEFMC In progress Evaluating empirical thresholds 22
Management complexity 2019 MAFMC In progress Student work needs further analysis, no further work this year 23
Shellfish growth/distribution linked to climate (system productivity) 2019 MAFMC In progress Project with A. Hollander 24
Avg weight of diet components by feeding group 2019 Internal In progress Part of fish condition project 25
Mean stomach weight across feeding guilds 2019 MAFMC In progress Intern evaluated trends in guild diets 26
Inflection points for indicators 2019 Both Councils In progress Evaluating empirical thresholds 27
Recreational bycatch mortality as an indicator of regulatory waste 2021 MAFMC SSC Not started Lacking resources this year 28
Sturgeon Bycatch 2021 MAFMC SSC Not started Lacking resources this year 29
Decomposition of diversity drivers highlighting social components 2021 MAFMC SSC Not started Lacking resources this year 30
Changing per capita seafood consumption as driver of revenue? 2021 MAFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 31
Nutrient input, Benthic Flux and POC(particulate organic carbon ) to inform benthic productivity by something other than surface indidcators 2021 MAFMC SSC Not started Lacking resources this year 32
Relate OA to nutrient input; are there "dead zones" (hypoxia)? 2021 MAFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 33
Indicators of chemical pollution in offshore waters 2021 MAFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 34
How does phyto size comp affect EOF indicator, if at all? 2021 MAFMC Not started May pursue with MAFMC SSC eco WG 35
Indicator of scallop pred pops poorly sampled by bottom trawls 2021 NEFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 36
Compare EOF (Link) thresholds to empirical thresholds (Large, Tam) 2021 MAFMC SSC Not started May pursue with MAFMC SSC eco WG 37
Time series analysis (Zooplankton/Forage fish) to tie into regime shifts 2021 MAFMC SSC Not started Lacking resources this year 38
Optimum yield for ecosystem 2021 NEFMC Not started May pursue with MAFMC SSC eco WG 39
Re-evaluate EPUs 2020 NEFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 40
Incorporate social sciences survey from council 2020 NEFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 41
Biomass of spp not included in BTS 2020 MAFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 42
Reduce indicator dimensionality with multivariate statistics 2020 NEFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 43
Estuarine condition relative to power plants and temp 2019 MAFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 44
Young of Year index from multiple surveys 2019 MAFMC Not started Lacking resources this year 45
9 / 31

Engagement: Why develop an ecosystem approach?

"We rebuilt all the stocks, so why is everyone still pissed off?" --Rich Seagraves

in 2011, the Mid-Atlantic Council asked:

visioning project goals and objectives

visioning project responses and port meetings

And many people answered, from commercial fishery, recreational fishery, environmental organization, and interested public perspectives.

Visioning report:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

10 / 31

Common themes among all stakeholder groups:

• There is a lack of confidence in the data that drive fishery management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not as involved in the Council process as they can and should be.

• Different jurisdictions and regulations among the many fishery management organizations result in complexity and inconsistency.

• There is a need for increased transparency and communications in fisheries management.

• The dynamics of the ecosystem and food web should be considered to a greater extent in fisheries management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not adequately represented on the Council.

• Pollution is negatively affecting the health of fish stocks.

Visioning report, p. 3:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

11 / 31

How did MAFMC develop their ecosystem approach?

Visioning Project → Strategic Plan with one objective to develop

"A non-regulatory umbrella document intended to guide Council policy with respect to ecosystem considerations across existing Fishery Management Plans"

Mid-Atlantic EAFM development with full details in speaker notes

Details, including workshop presentations and white papers: http://www.mafmc.org/eafm

12 / 31

The Mid-Atlantic Council identified several theme areas from the visioning project as noted in the left panel of the workflow graphic: forage fish, species interactions, social and economic issues, climate and habitat. The Council held full day workshops during Council meetings where experts on the topics provided overviews and Council members asked questions and discussed the issues. Workships on Forage fish, Climate, Climate and Governance, Interactions (species and fleet), and Habitat were held between 2013 and 2015, resulting in white papers on Forage fish, Climate (and habitat), Interactions (species, fleet, climate, and habitat). Social and economic considerations were integrated in each workshop rather than looked at separately.

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosystem Approach

13 / 31

The Council’s EAFM framework has similarities to the IEA loop on slide 2. It uses risk assessment as a first step to prioritize combinations of managed species, fleets, and ecosystem interactions for consideration. Second, a conceptual model is developed identifying key environmental, ecological, social, economic, and management linkages for a high-priority fishery. Third, quantitative modeling addressing Council-specified questions and based on interactions identified in the conceptual model is applied to evaluate alternative management strategies that best balance management objectives. As strategies are implemented, outcomes are monitored and the process is adjusted, and/or another priority identified in risk assessment can be addressed.

Engagement 1: Illustrating the use of the framework

Example risk assessment table with species in rows and risk elements in columns with green cells indicating low risks, yellow and orange cells indicating moderate risks, and red cells indicatig high risk

Risk assessment highlights prority species/issues for more detailed evaluation

A conceptual model maps out key interactions for high risk fisheries, specifies quantitative management strategy evaluation

14 / 31

Quoted from Gaichas et al 2016 For this example, the existing Mid Atlantic food web model is used to define key species interactions for each managed species, habitat expertise is needed to link habitats to species, physical oceanographic and climate expertise is needed to link key climate drivers to habitats, and the expertise of fishermen, economists and other social scientists, and fishery managers is needed to link fish with fisheries and objectives for human well-being. The key link between fisheries and human well being objectives is identified as the system of regulatory allocations of total allowable catch between states along the Mid Atlantic coast. The interaction between this allocation system (based on historical catch) and climate-driven distribution shifts of the managed species has created considerable difficulty in this region. This conceptual model clearly connects climate considerations to management, as well as habitat considerations of concern to the Council but outside Council jurisdiction (water quality in coastal estuaries).

Engagement 2: Iterative development of the risk assessment

Example risk assessment table with species in rows and risk elements in columns with green cells indicating low risks, yellow and orange cells indicating moderate risks, and red cells indicatig high risk

  • Council staff and scientists create examples based on Council input

    ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ...

  • Council discusses, clarifies, revises with public input

Element Definition Indicators
Economic
Commercial Revenue Risk of not maximizing fishery value Revenue in aggregate
Recreational Angler Days/Trips Risk of not maximizing fishery value Numbers of anglers and trips in aggregate
Commercial Fishery Resilience (Revenue Diversity) Risk of reduced fishery business resilience Species diversity of revenue
Commercial Fishery Resilience (Shoreside Support) Risk of reduced fishery business resilience due to shoreside support infrastructure Number of shoreside support businesses
Social
Fleet Resilience Risk of reduced fishery resilience Number of fleets, fleet diversity
Social-Cultural Risk of reduced community resilience Community vulnerability, fishery engagement and reliance
Food Production
Commercial Risk of not optimizing seafood production Seafood landings in aggregate
Recreational Risk of not maintaining personal food production Recreational landings in aggregate
15 / 31

Council-evaluated risk elements: Management

Element Definition Indicators
Management
Control Risk of not achieving OY due to inadequate control Catch compared to allocation
Interactions Risk of not achieving OY due to interactions with species managed by other entities Number and type of interactions with protected or non-MAFMC managed species, co-management
Other ocean uses Risk of not achieving OY due to other human uses Fishery overlap with energy/mining areas
Regulatory complexity Risk of not achieving compliance due to complexity Number of regulations by species
Discards Risk of not minimizing bycatch to extent practicable Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Allocation Risk of not achieving OY due to spatial mismatch of stocks and management Distribution shifts + number of interests
16 / 31

Engagement 3: Conceptual modeling, from science- to stakeholder-driven

Mid-Atlantic conceptual model developed by a technical team and Council representatives (DePiper, et al., 2021)

Collaborative conceptual modeling with stakeholders:

17 / 31

South Atlantic example: citizen science for data-poor migratory species

South Atlantic physical system https://safmc.net/citizen-science/dolphin-wahoo-participatory-workshops/

South Atlantic dolfin wahoo NC-VA conceptual model South Atlantic dolfin wahoo S Fl conceptual model

https://safmc-shinyapps.shinyapps.io/NCVA_DolphinWorkshops2020/
https://safmc-shinyapps.shinyapps.io/S_FL_DolphinWorkshops2021/

18 / 31

Caribbean example:                                                                                                 stakeholder-led EBFM

slide courtesy Juan J. Cruz-Motta

19 / 31

Engagement 4: Stakeholder engagement for Management Strategy Evaluation

Are any Atlantic herring harvest control rules good for both fisheries and predators?

Harvest control rules are:

  • plans for changing fishing based on stock status
  • pre-determined

"Which harvest control rules best consider herring's role as forage?"

  • DESIGN a harvest control rule (HCR):
    • balancing fishing benefits and ecological services
    • addressing diverse stakeholder interests
  • TRANSPARENTLY within management time frame!
20 / 31

The Herring MSE process

First MSE within US Council
(Feeney, et al., 2018)
Scope: annual stockwide HCR Open stakeholder meetings (2)

  • ID objectives, uncertainties
  • ID acceptable performance
  • more diverse, interactive than "normal" process

Uncertainties identified

  • herring mortality (M)
  • environmental effects on herring
  • predator response to herring abundance
  • assessment uncertainty
21 / 31

Linked models matching stakeholder-identified objectives

The Dream:1 Convert the effects of control rules on 4 user groups to dollars:

  1. Users of landed herring (Demand)
    • Lobster industry, aquariums
  2. Herring harvesters (Supply)
  3. Direct users of herring in the ocean (not people)
    • Terns and Whales
    • Striped Bass, Dogfish
  4. Indirect users of herring in the ocean (people, Derived Demand)
    • Bird- and whale-watchers
    • Recreational and Commercial Fishing
The Reality
  • 8 herring operating models linked to simple predator and economic models, developed in parallel
  • limited range of predator response
  • limited economic effects, directed fishery only
(Deroba, et al., 2018)

1 Credit: Min-Yang Lee

22 / 31

Stakeholder process for Summer flounder recreational discards MSE

Broad online scoping results helped develop Core stakeholder group

MAFMC webcallMAFMC stakeholder comp MAFMC concerns

23 / 31

Governance: Fishery management in the US

Eight regional Fishery Management Councils establish plans for sustainable management of stocks within their jurisdictions. All are governed by the same law, but tailor management to their regional stakeholder needs.

US map highlighting regions for each fishery management council

More information: http://www.fisherycouncils.org/
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#magnuson-stevens-act

24 / 31

Current governance complexity range

Alaska: 1 Council, 1 State

Pacific coast: 1 Council, 3 States

Atlantic coast: 3 Councils, 1 Interstate Commission, 15 States

  • Difficult to deal with climate issues affecting whole coast

  • Stocks moving beyond boundaries

  • User conflicts

  • Wind development conflicts

NEUS mapSEUS map

25 / 31

Current governance complexity range

Alaska: 1 Council, 1 State

Pacific coast: 1 Council, 3 States

Atlantic coast: 3 Councils, 1 Interstate Commission, 15 States

  • Difficult to deal with climate issues affecting whole coast

  • Stocks moving beyond boundaries

  • User conflicts

  • Wind development conflicts

NEUS mapSEUS map

Western Pacific and Caribbean: multiple US territories and international waters!

25 / 31

EBM issues in the region: Climate Change and Wind Energy Development

Initial coordination steps

2014 US East Coast Climate and Governance conference

https://www.mafmc.org/s/Climate-and-Governance-Workshop-Report.pdf

Climate scenario planning

  • Pacific Coast

https://www.pcouncil.org/actions/climate-and-communities-initiative/

  • Atlantic Coast

https://www.mafmc.org/climate-change-scenario-planning

26 / 31

East coast scenario planning process: https://www.mafmc.org/climate-change-scenario-planning

Engagement

Steps

27 / 31

How to use the scenarios?

Cross-Jurisdictional Management & Governance

  • What major stresses would be placed on existing cross-jurisdictional (Council/Commission/State) governance arrangements in this scenario?
  • Would current approaches for updating management authority over a fishery work well? Here, management authority refers to the entity (Council(s), Commission, or NOAA) responsible for developing the management plan.
  • What mechanisms for changing management authority need to be considered? For example, automatic triggers based on changes in stock distribution?
  • What management challenges are present for species that move across jurisdictional boundaries?
  • What actions/changes are needed to better manage species that move across jurisdictional boundaries?

https://www.mafmc.org/s/ECSP-Scenario-Narratives_Nov-2022.pdf

28 / 31

Conclusions (Muffley, et al., 2021)

  • The process takes time – need to recognize that early and be willing to invest the resources to see it through

    • Need the science to develop and support efforts
    • Need management (and stakeholders) to understand process and concepts and support process

  • Collaboration is key

    • Within the science community – diverse expertise is needed
    • Between science and management – understanding what information is needed and important to management, providing tools to management to understand ecosystem linkages and implications
    • Between science and stakeholders – need to build trust, open dialogue (everyone is heard), and sharing data and observations (on water and with information)
    • Between management and stakeholders – listening to/acting on stakeholder priorities and feedback, process not out to add more uncertainty but provide for more informed decisions

  • Timely and understandable scientific information

    • Developing a process to create science products at timescales necessary for management
    • Information needs to be relevant and clearly presented
    • Flexibility to use different/alternative data sources when specific data in not available (proxies)
29 / 31

References

Bastille, K. et al. (2021). "Improving the IEA Approach Using Principles of Open Data Science". In: Coastal Management 49.1. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155, pp. 72-89. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155 (visited on Apr. 16, 2021).

DePiper, G. S. et al. (2017). "Operationalizing integrated ecosystem assessments within a multidisciplinary team: lessons learned from a worked example". En. In: ICES Journal of Marine Science 74.8, pp. 2076-2086. ISSN: 1054-3139. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsx038. URL: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/74/8/2076/3094701 (visited on Mar. 09, 2018).

DePiper, G. et al. (2021). "Learning by doing: collaborative conceptual modelling as a path forward in ecosystem-based management". In: ICES Journal of Marine Science 78.4, pp. 1217-1228. ISSN: 1054-3139. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab054. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab054 (visited on Aug. 08, 2022).

Deroba, J. J. et al. (2018). "The dream and the reality: meeting decision-making time frames while incorporating ecosystem and economic models into management strategy evaluation". In: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. ISSN: 0706-652X. DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2018-0128. URL: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0128 (visited on Jul. 20, 2018).

Feeney, R. G. et al. (2018). "Integrating Management Strategy Evaluation into fisheries management: advancing best practices for stakeholder inclusion based on an MSE for Northeast U.S. Atlantic herring". In: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. ISSN: 0706-652X. DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2018-0125. URL: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0125 (visited on Nov. 09, 2018).

Gaichas, S. K. et al. (2018). "Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic". In: Frontiers in Marine Science 5. ISSN: 2296-7745. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00442. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00442/abstract (visited on Nov. 20, 2018).

Levin, P. S. et al. (2016). "Thirty-two essential questions for understanding the social–ecological system of forage fish: the case of pacific herring". In: Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 2.4. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1213, p. e01213. ISSN: 2096-4129. DOI: 10.1002/ehs2.1213. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1213 (visited on Jun. 22, 2020).

Muffley, B. et al. (2021). "There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management". In: Coastal Management 49.1. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156, pp. 90-106. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156 (visited on Apr. 16, 2021).

Rosellon-Druker, J. et al. (2021). "Participatory place-based integrated ecosystem assessment in Sitka, Alaska: Constructing and operationalizing a socio-ecological conceptual model for sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria)". En. In: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 184-185, p. 104912. ISSN: 0967-0645. DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104912. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064520301673 (visited on Mar. 10, 2022).

Spooner, E. et al. (2021). "Using Integrated Ecosystem Assessments to Build Resilient Ecosystems, Communities, and Economies". En. In: Coastal Management 49.1, pp. 26-45. ISSN: 0892-0753, 1521-0421. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846152. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846152 (visited on Nov. 21, 2022).

30 / 31

Thank you!

Contact: Sarah.Gaichas@noaa.gov Slides available at https://noaa-edab.github.io/presentations

31 / 31

Scientific concepts → management and stakeholder engagement

The IEA Loop1 IEA process from goal setting to assessment to strategy evaluation with feedbacks

[1] https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/national/IEA-approach

2 / 31

an iterative, collaborative process has evolved to formulate ecosystem advice and to apply it in decision making

Paused

Help

Keyboard shortcuts

↑, ←, Pg Up, k Go to previous slide
↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j Go to next slide
Home Go to first slide
End Go to last slide
Number + Return Go to specific slide
b / m / f Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode
c Clone slideshow
p Toggle presenter mode
t Restart the presentation timer
?, h Toggle this help
Esc Back to slideshow